Discussion Title: Should The US Have Pulled Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement?

1. The US should not have pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement
1.1. Con: It makes no significant impact. The Paris Climate Agreement is symbolic and unenforceable.
1.1.1. Pro: The Paris Climate Agreement is wholly unrealistic when you think of consumer economics. This will require that nations remove fuels that damage the atmosphere, but the cars most citizens can afford are exclusively the same cars that consume said fuel. It is both fiscally unrealistic and fiscally irresponsible for anyone to adhere to the demand.
1.1.1.1. Con: Car manufacturers will always want to make a profit. Now that they know that their product will be redundant in the years to come, they will put R&D into cleaner fuels and low emission cars, bringing the cost down.
1.1.1.1.1. Pro: All major car manufacturers are embracing electric vehicles \(see [Ford](https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-detroit-ford-motor/ford-plans-11-billion-investment-40-electrified-vehicles-by-2022-idUKKBN1F30YZ), [Nissan](http://fortune.com/2018/03/23/nissan-electric-vehicle-million/), [BMW](http://www.cityam.com/282715/bmw-pledges-gbp6m-research-and-development-electric-and)\), with 4 manufacturers declaring they [will go 100% Electric](https://mashable.com/2017/10/03/electric-car-development-plans-ford-gm/?europe=true#bb3u52Ipaiqu) \(GM, Volvo, Daimler \(Mercedes-Benz\), Jaguar Land Rover\).
1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: This is happening fast - Volvo will be producing [100% electric vehicles by 2019](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/05/volvo-becomes-first-major-car-manufacturer-go-electric/).
1.1.1.1.2. Pro: The bloomberg [Electric Vehicle Outlook](https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/) forecasts sales of electric vehicles \(EVs\) increasing from a record 1.1 million worldwide in 2017, to 11 million in 2025 and then surging to 30 million in 2030 as they become cheaper to make than internal combustion engine \(ICE\) cars. China will lead this transition, with sales there accounting for almost 50% of the global EV market in 2025.
1.1.1.1.2.1. Con: This is complete hearsay. You can forecast all you wish, but you will never be able to give everyone access to these cars. You cannot play favorites, and making them accessible to everyone is impossible.
1.1.1.1.2.1.1. Con: It is entirely possible to make electric cars as accessible as ICE cars are today.
1.1.1.1.3. Pro: Electric Vehicles are predicted to account for a rapidly growing percentage of all passenger vehicles [by 2025](https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/#toc-download).  China is predicted 19%, Europe 14%, and the U.S. 11%.
1.1.1.1.4. Con: Not everyone can afford even some of the cheapest electric cars. Even if you sold them for 3K, there are some who can't even afford anything cheap past 1K.
1.1.1.1.5. Con: Electricity functions as a different commodity than oil, generally, oil's a cheaper resource, and most likely easier to access.
1.1.1.1.5.1. Con: Oil is not necessarily easier to access, and is getting more and more scarce. Greener electricity generation is becoming more accessible and cheaper. Iceland generates pretty much all its energy through hydroelectric and geothermal technology, the U.K. generating more through wind than coal-fired and Germany generating up to 78% through solar technologies.
1.1.1.2. Con: Consumers only make choices on what is available and affordable. If burning fossil fuels became more expensive consumer spending would change; possibly by an increase in the use of public transport.
1.1.1.2.1. Pro: More people using public transport could bring fares down.
1.1.1.3. Con: Agreements like Paris stimulate the drive to mass production by signaling trends and to some degree certainty to the auto industry. Mass production has in the past lowered unit costs; internal combustion cars were once unaffordable to most citizens too.
1.1.1.4. Con: Many countries are now banning new vehicles that run on fossil fuels like gasoline, diesel or liquefied petroleum gas.
1.1.1.4.1. Pro: Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, and the Netherlands have announced [plans to ban fossil fuel cars](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/04/23/will-electric-vehicles-take-world-just-green-really/) starting in 2030; Britain, France, Taiwan and California will ban them in 2040; and Norway in 2025. Paris, Rome, Madrid, Athens and Mexico City will ban diesel vehicles in 2025.
1.1.1.4.2. Pro: China, the world’s largest car market, will no longer approve any new fossil fuel car projects. A policy that goes into effect in 2019 requires automakers that manufacture or import over 30,000 vehicles a year to earn fuel-consumption credits and achieve quotas for producing zero and low-emission vehicles. China is also [working on its plan to ban fossil-fuel vehicles](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/04/23/will-electric-vehicles-take-world-just-green-really/) and will soon phase them out on the island of Hainan in a test run.
1.1.1.4.2.1. Pro: American and European automakers know they [have to sell cars in China](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/04/23/will-electric-vehicles-take-world-just-green-really/) in order to thrive, so Ford, Daimler and General Motors \(GM\) are all going electric.
1.1.1.4.2.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.1.1.
1.1.2. Con: In 2017 alone, around [70%](http://www.ren21.net/status-of-renewables/global-status-report/) of new power generation installed globally was renewable energy, with more solar PV capacity being added in 2017 than that of coal, gas and nuclear combined.
1.1.3. Con: Although it is not enforced through international law, it is enforceable through public support.
1.1.4. Con: Although partially symbolic, that does not remove from the fact that it is a huge gesture that demonstrates global attitudes to averting further damage from climate change.
1.1.4.1. Pro: The only thing Trump has achieved is to illustrate that climate change is not considered important to the US, which is unforgivably self-involved.
1.1.4.2. Con: A hollow gesture that would cost trillions of U.S. dollars is not the type of gesture we should be interested in.
1.1.5. Pro: Since the earliest stages, the Paris Climate Agreement has been criticised for its [unenforceable nature](https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/12/01/expect-climate-catastrophe-paris-agreement-lacks-enforcement/#11942e033313).
1.1.6. Pro: Only two countries are in [compliance](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/only-2-countries-are-meeting-their-climate-pledges-heres-how-the-10-worst-could-improve), Gambia and Morocco. They are insignificant to global CO2 emissions.
1.1.7. Con: The Paris Agreement evolved from the similar Kyoto agreement, which succeeded.
1.1.7.1. Pro: The UN \(the organisation which created the Paris Agreement\) implemented the Montreal Protocol in 1987, [which successfully fixed](https://www.kialo.com/the-un-is-a-good-thing-15052/15052.0=15052.1+15052.149+15052.283) the hole in the Ozone layer, was extremely quick to debate, ratify, and implement, and has been considered the most successful international environmental agreements in all of history.
1.1.7.2. Pro: Targets for the 37 nations [were surpassed by 2.4 GtC02 per year](http://www.alphr.com/environment/1003699/climate-change-figures-show-kyoto-protocol-was-a-success-or-do-they).
1.1.8. Con: This is even more reason to not pull out, because there were only symbolic downsides to remaining.
1.1.9. Pro: [According to MIT](http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-difference-will-paris-agreement-make-0422), the Paris Climate Agreement would have not had any meaningful impact on climate change had all nations followed through with their suggested promises. "Meaningful" in this instance being my subjective interpretation of value for cost. It would have served only as a means for countries to proverbially pat themselves on the backs while costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.
1.1.9.1. Pro: The [study referenced](http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-8016.pdf) predicts that if all nations keep their promises \(and no new targets are made after the existing ones finish in 2030\) at the end of the 2050 there will still be less than 0.1°C drop in temperatures.
1.1.9.1.1. Con: If there were no action taken at all, the increase would be potentially several degrees. Thus the benefit is far greater than a 0.1 degree reduction.
1.1.9.2. Con: The [study referenced](http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-8016.pdf) highlights that drops in greenhouse gas emissions take a long time to be reflected in global temperatures.

It says that by 2100, we would have reduced temperatures by 0.6 - 1.1 °C  \(depending on if we stop the targets at 2030, or if we continue them at the same level\).
1.1.9.3. Con: The Paris Agreement pledges, which only cover the years 2020-2030, are [expected to be reviewed and strengthened periodically](http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-difference-will-paris-agreement-make-0422), which would lead to an even stronger effect on the climate.
1.2. Pro: Leaving the Paris Accord will stifle innovation in the US green space as the rest of the world moves toward [sustainable alternatives](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/24/uk-power-generation-coal-free-gas-renewables-nuclear).
1.2.1. Pro: This decision also enables an increasing policy of [isolationism](https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000005701757/in-davos-trumps-isolationism-may-isolate-him.html) in a world where the global economy impacts daily life for everyone.
1.3. Pro: Pulling out has led to hostility towards the US and a renewed scepticism towards international cooperation.
1.3.1. Pro: The USA has a bad tradition of [refusing](https://www.quora.com/Which-international-treaties-has-the-US-refused-to-sign-and-or-ratify) international agreements. The USA often wants to be a world police that does not obey rules and regulations. This tradition makes the world a worse place to live in.
1.3.2. Con: [The US withdrawal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement#International_response) united the rest of the world in their commitment to the agreement and to reducing climate change.
1.3.3. Con: The US needs to act in its own interests first; international relationships are secondary.
1.3.3.1. Con: It's in the US's interests to keep good international relationships.
1.4. Con: Climate warnings are over-exaggerated and inaccurate, we don't need to take drastic steps to keep the climate healthy.
1.4.1. Pro: Humans only make a small effect on the climate, compared to natural causes of warming and cooling.
1.4.1.1. Con: This idea is continually losing ground. IPCC scientists have said that [over 100% of climate warming](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans) is due to humans. \(Over 100% is possible because natural climate change \(volcanoes, solar activity\) would have been slightly cooling, offsetting human caused warming\).
1.4.2. Pro: The world was greener millions of years ago when CO2 levels were higher.
1.4.2.1. Con: Whilst the world has had greater concentrations of CO2 many many years ago, the change was over a long period of time. The problem today is the rapid rate of change.
1.4.2.2. Pro: Carbon Dioxide levels [have regularly exceeded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration) current levels.

Once at 7,000 parts per million, they are [currently \(mid-2017\)](https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) at 407 parts per million.
1.4.2.2.1. Con: One of the biggest problems is the rate of change, rather than just the level of atmospheric CO2.
1.4.2.2.2. Con: We are considering the effect of increasing CO2 on the planet and on current human society. Drastic changes in CO2 levels and an increased global temperature would lead to severe crop failure and a [food shortage.](https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_649617_en.html)
1.4.2.2.3. Pro: CO2 levels going back some 400,000 years have never been as high as they became in the 1950's and since then they have been increasing at an [exponential rate](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/).
1.4.2.2.4. Con: [Other factors were also at play making those CO2 levels safe](https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77), for example lower levels of sun activity. Some of the high CO2 periods coincided with glaciation, not increased temperatures. This shows that CO2 levels alone are not enough to predict climate changes.
1.4.2.2.5. Con: We should look at [recent figures](https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/) instead of millenia ago, because we are in the "Anthropocene", a new geologic era where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.
1.4.2.3. Con: "The world was greener" is both unevidenced and scientifically undefined.

Even if we had a clear definition of greenness, we cannot measure how green the world was across millions of years due to the [intermittent glaciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age).
1.4.3. Con: [Climate indicators like greenhouse gas levels, temperature and sea level](https://www.climatelevels.org/?pid=2degreesinstitute&theme=dark-unica) have shot up exponentially since the industrial revolution, and the situation continually [keeps proving](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-worse_n_4523828) to be [even worse](https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-extensive-worse-thought.html) than the bleakest scientific prognoses. This is [already causing catastrophic problems worldwide](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/11/19/news/how-climate-crisis-killing-us-9-alarming-charts) and the indicators' trend does not show signs of reversing.
1.5. Con: The Paris Agreement does not go far enough; the emission targets are not enforced.
1.5.1. Con: This can be amended or worked on. It shouldn't be sufficient justification to pull out altogether.
1.5.2. Con: If the Paris agreement doesn't go far enough, then it's up to the US to go further than that. Going backwards by pulling out of the agreement is counterproductive.
1.5.3. Con: It was still a step in the right direction.
1.5.4. Pro: [China has ignored its responsibilities](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/390741-chinas-rising-emissions-prove-trump-right-on-paris-agreement) under the Paris Agreement and suffered no meaningful consequences as a result.
1.5.5. Con: The previous Kyoto Agreement had enforced emission targets, [but the US did not ratify it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-ratification_by_the_US) either.

This shows that enforcement of targets is not the reason for the US not contributing to these agreements.
1.5.5.1. Pro: The only reason why the US do not sign the environmental agreements is that the American government is too attached to business interests, instead of thinking of the well being of its citizens.
1.5.5.1.1. Pro: Political corruption, which normally benefits business interests, is widespread and shows [little sign of diminishing](http://ebour.com.ar/pdfs/Political_corruption.pdf) in importance.
1.5.5.1.1.1. Pro: [85%](https://newatlas.com/2016-corruption-perceptions-index-our-rotten-world/47566/) of humans perceive their government as corrupt and [65%](https://ourworldindata.org/corruption) of people consider their political parties "corrupt or extremely corrupt", according to [Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index](https://www.transparency.org/country).
1.5.5.1.1.2. Pro: Only [18%](https://www.people-press.org/2017/12/14/public-trust-in-government-1958-2017/) of Americans say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” \(3%\) or “most of the time” \(15%\).
1.5.6. Con: -> See 1.1.9.3.
1.6. Con: The US has reduced emissions [more than any other country](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/).
1.6.1. Con: The US Energy Information Administration estimated that emissions will actually rise over the next two years.[In 2018, the agency forecasts a 1.1 percent increase, and in 2019, it projects a 0.2 percent increase](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/18/environmental-protection-agency/are-greenhouse-emissions-down-under-donald-trump-e/). This is may be due to Donald Trump removing environmental protections introduced by Barack Obama.
1.6.2. Con: US emission reductions are [mainly due](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png) to natural gas replacing coal. Whilst natural gas emits [50%](https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/is-natural-gas-clean/) less emissions than coal, it is not renewable or fully clean, and so is not sustainable in the long term.
1.6.2.1. Pro: Fracking harms the environment.
1.6.2.1.1. Pro: Because shale drilling and fracking is understood so poorly and regulated so little, we don’t know exactly how much air pollution is leaking from fracking wells across the country. States like Colorado have seen tremendous[spikes in air pollution](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/) due to fracking wells.
1.6.2.1.2. Pro: Fracking releases methane gas, which is [84](https://metamag.org/2017/12/07/methane-the-greenhouse-gas-86-times-worse-that-co2-finally-targeted-by-meps-for-inclusion-in-climate-plans/) times worse for the environment than the C02 released.
1.6.2.2. Pro: Even a small accidental leakage in the process of extracting and utilizing natural gas can negate it's benefits compared to coal. Even if the optimistic 1.6% national leak rate claimed by the gas industry is true, it’s enough to [erode nearly half](https://energypost.eu/wind-solars-achilles-heel-methane-meltdown-porter-ranch-means-energy-transition/) of the climate-saving advantages.
1.6.2.3. Con: With more than [100 years of natural gas supply](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2017/09/24/why-u-s-natural-gas-prices-will-remain-low/#51d6570e3783) in the US, there is plenty of time to transition to renewables.
1.6.2.4. Pro: Natural gas still emits [0.572 kg](https://www.wingas.com/fileadmin/Wingas/WINGAS-Studien/Energieversorgung_und_Energiewende_en.pdf) CO2 per kWh. With US electricity consumption around [12MWh/capita](https://www.alternative-energies.net/how-to-power-a-city-of-100-000-people-using-only-renewable-energy/), that's 7t/capita. 7t already exceeds the EU average of [6.8t/capita](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29239194) and is not far from Chinas 7.2t/capita. And we haven't even mentioned transport, agriculture or industry yet.
1.6.3. Pro: The [United States Climate Alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Climate_Alliance) \(covering 50% of the U.S. population and over 50% of GDP\) are effectively continuing with Paris Agreement at the state level.
1.6.4. Con: If the US is already a trailblazer in terms of reducing its emissions, then membership to the Paris Agreement should not be onerous. Therefore, membership should not be controversial.
1.7. Con: The agreement will hurt the economy.
1.7.1. Con: The top major tech companies \(incl Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and Intel\) [wrote an open letter](https://www.c2es.org/content/business-support-for-the-paris-agreement/) saying remaining in the Paris Agreement was best for the economy.
1.7.2. Con: More than 100 companies, including IKEA, Mars Incorporated, PG&E, Salesforce, General Mills, Kellogg Company, HP, and Starbucks, [expressed their support](https://unfccc.int/news/100-major-companies-support-rapid-paris-agreement-implementation) for the Paris Agreement.
1.7.3. Con: The long term impact of climate change is expected to harm the economy far more than tougher environmental regulation would.
1.7.3.1. Pro: Any negative economic impact is preferable to a future series of catastrophes that results in the destruction of human civilization \(and by extension the economy\). Any short-term cost is acceptable if it means a greater long-term cost is avoided. This is the basic principle behind all forms of insurance, which is a short-term cost \(regular payments\) protecting against larger long-term costs \(accidents\). Reducing carbon emissions is essentially an insurance policy against future global disaster.
1.7.4. Pro: Reducing CO2 emissions will cost jobs.
1.7.4.1. Con: Green energy and climate change creates jobs.
1.7.4.1.1. Con: Will not create real jobs. Most of the jobs are taxpayer subsidised. Once the subsidies stop the renewable energy sector will have to stand on its own. We will then see how many real such jobs there are.
1.7.4.1.1.1. Pro: The UK cut subsidies for Solar Energy in 2016, and [more than half](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/10/uk-solar-power-industry-job-losses-government-subsidy-cuts-energy-policy) of the 35,000 jobs in UK solar industry were lost.
1.7.4.1.1.1.1. Con: However the U.K. has increased investment in wind energy, with the proportion of engery produced through wind turbines increasing every year. The UK is a cloudy, windy country, which is why investment is being put into wind rather than solar.
1.7.4.1.1.2. Con: The fossil fuel industry is also heavily subsidised. It received subsidies of [$5.3 trillion \(6.5% of global GDP\) in 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867), which is [more than 4 times the subsidies that renewable energy receives](https://web.archive.org/web/20170509100441/https://www.auriumcapital.com/fossil-fuel-subsidies-vs-renewable-energy-subsidies).
1.7.4.1.1.2.1. Pro: As fossil fuels count for [80%](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS?view=chart) of global consumption, fossil fuels produce 4 times the amount of energy of green energy. Therefore, the subsidies per unit of energy produced is the same for Fossil Fuels and Green Energy.
1.7.4.1.1.2.2. Con: As your link explains "As a rule of thumb, those subsidising renewable energy technologies tend to be richer OECD countries and those that subsidise fossil fuels tend to be non OECD countries, particularly large oil/gas producers like Saudi Arabia and Russia". This says it all. Be interesting to see a study that includes the tax \(opposite of a subsidy\) collected on oil products especially in OECD countries.
1.7.4.1.1.2.3. Con: Interesting to note that the failing socialist country Venezuela is ending fuel subsidies. [www.reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-economy/venezuela-gasoline-prices-should-rise-to-international-levels-maduro-idUSKBN1KZ01Z)
1.7.4.1.1.3. Pro: US [Renewable energy subsidies are $7.3 billion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States) compared to Fossil fuel subsidies of $3.2 billion.
1.7.4.1.2. Pro: In renewable energy, the US solar industry is [creating jobs twenty times faster](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/how-will-climate-change-affect-jobs/) than the overall economy.
1.7.4.1.3. Pro: Today, there are more than [3.8 million “green energy jobs” available](https://www.fastcompany.com/3063560/the-business-case-to-mobilize-against-climate-change-jobs-and-innovation), following a 13% increase from 2013 to 2014.

If industries continue to mobilize around climate solutions, this number will only increase.
1.7.4.1.4. Pro: The OECDs research suggests that ambitious climate change mitigation policies could [create more jobs and also more higher skilled jobs](http://www.oecd.org/employment/greeningjobsandskills.htm).
1.7.4.1.5. Pro: Energy jobs are already migrating to clean energy.
US [clean energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs](https://thinkprogress.org/clean-energy-more-jobs-than-fossil-fuels-32f615915399/) by more than 2.5 to 1.
1.7.4.2. Pro: Drastic reduction of CO2 emissions would require minimizing production, and consumption, of animal products, impacting this sector's contribution to the US economy.
1.7.4.2.1. Pro: Animal agriculture is the [second largest contributor](https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/food/animal-agricultures-impact-on-climate-change/) to human-made greenhouse gas emissions.
1.7.4.3. Pro: Partially cutting off CO2 emissions affects manufacturing industries, mainly those that involve fossil fuel processing. In particular, plastic products are ubiquitous in nearly every commercial US sector.
1.7.4.3.1. Con: The fossil fuel industry will eventually fail anyway because [fossil fuels are running out](https://www.business-standard.com/article/punditry/how-long-will-fossil-fuels-last-115092201397_1.html).
1.7.4.3.2. Con: -> See 1.7.4.1.5.
1.7.4.4. Pro: Limited transportation of commercial goods across long distances will be needed to reduce CO2 emissions.
1.7.4.4.1. Con: Transportation will be possible using green energy, by using [electric vehicles like the Tesla Semi](https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/semi).
1.7.4.4.1.1. Pro: This will also be cheaper, with the Tesla Semi providing ["$200,000+ in fuel savings and a two-year payback period"](https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/semi).
1.7.4.5. Con: Any job loss is preferable to a future series of catastrophes that results in the destruction of human civilization. Any short-term cost is acceptable if it means a greater long-term cost is avoided.
1.7.5. Pro: The additional regulatory actions required to meet the Agreement's targets would reduce US GDP by [$420 billion per year](https://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf)(As the broadest measure of economic impact, the reductions in GDP due to costs of future GHG regulation are notable in each of the scenarios. In the core scenario, U.S. GDP loss could be about $250 billion in 2025 increasing to about $420 billion per year on average and a cumulative NERA Economic Consulting loss of about $4 trillion between 2022 and 2031.) on average. \(p. 6-7\)
1.7.6. Pro: Meeting the Agreement's targets will cost the average household [$710 per year](https://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf)(On average in 2025, a typical U.S. household’s real annual income declines by $160 relative to today’s income level. The average annual loss in income increases to about $710 per household between 2022 and 2031. The losses become significant and could reach about $5,000 per household between 2034 and 2040.) between 2022 and 2031. \(p. 11\)
1.7.7. Con: [Almost all](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-paris-agreement-climate-change-oil-companies-shell-bp-exxon-urge-president-stay-in-a7745666.html) the major oil companies, including those in the US agreed with the Paris Climate Agreement.  On a purely financial level, the cost of climate change far outweighs the costs associated with meeting the agreement.  It also spurs innovation and new technology, which other countries will gladly step-in and accomplish.
1.8. Pro: Signing the Paris Climate Agreement was an extremely complicated endeavour, so the US's pulling out was irresponsible.
1.8.1. Con: That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying hard to reach some form of compromise.
1.8.1.1. Pro: The US could have remained in and negotiated from within.
1.8.2. Pro: It could take indefinite amounts of time and money to achieve very little.
1.8.2.1. Con: -> See 1.1.7.1.
1.8.2.2. Con: The climate change agreement is designed to start combatting the very serious impacts of climate change, which is affecting the whole world; it is not 'very little' to achieve.
1.8.3. Con: The vast majority of countries \(170+\) have agreed on, signed, and ratified [68 international treaties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_by_number_of_parties#List_of_treaties_by_number_of_parties).
1.9. Pro: Reducing climate change is vital to our survival as a species.
1.9.1. Pro: It has now been made very obvious that the US is enforcing isolationism, at the cost of the planet; it is an unacceptable decision to have made.
1.9.2. Pro: There is no other international way to address climate change.
1.9.3. Con: This statement exists under the assumption that the PCA actually makes a difference. Simply stating that climate change is important does not prove that PCA works.
1.9.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.
1.9.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.
1.9.4. Pro: -> See discussion #4540: Humans should act to fight climate change.
1.9.5. Con: Humans are tenacious, we'll adapt if we must.
1.9.5.1. Con: Humans are adapting, by creating the Paris agreement.
1.9.5.2. Con: If we don't start to seriously fight the climate change, the environmental consequences would be so harsh that we might end up [extinct as a species.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction)
1.9.5.3. Con: True, but most humans would rather keep the planet healthy than have to adjust to a ruined one.
1.9.6. Pro: The Paris Climate Agreement would result in a net benefit to human civilization in the long-run, even if there are short-run costs. This is the basic principle behind all forms of insurance, which is a short-term cost \(regular payments\) protecting against larger long-term costs \(accidents\). Reducing carbon emissions is essentially a worldwide insurance policy protecting humanity against future global disaster we know will come soon.
1.10. Con: Under the deal large amounts of money are being paid to other countries.
1.10.1. Con: It is questionable as to whether the redistributed funds would be effectively used by recipient countries, and so the accord if widely adopted could lead to significant waste, corruption, and a deadweight loss in utility in the global economy.[UN IPCC Official Questions Efficacy of Redistribution \(original from NZZ in German\)](https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227)
1.10.2. Con: Money is paid [voluntarily](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Mitigation_provisions_and_carbon_markets) if a country doesn't decide to run projects at home to reduce CO2 emissions.
1.10.2.1. Pro: Money is only paid to projects that work to offset failures at home to reduce CO2 emissions.
1.10.3. Con: The [Green Climate Fund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund) was established before the Paris Climate Agreement in Berlin 2013.
1.10.4. Pro: The agreement is a cover to create another tax levy on Western citizens.
1.10.4.1. Con: There is no evidence for the claim that the motivation for politicians to act on climate change is the desire to increase taxation.
1.10.4.2. Con: All payments are voluntary. It is up to each country to decide how much to give. The US is able to remain a member without paying anything.
1.10.4.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.4.1.
1.11. Pro: It is only fair that the biggest polluters pay the most to offset the effects.
1.11.1. Con: The biggest contributor to global warming in the world is [China](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/biggest-contributors-to-global-warming-in-the-world.html) at cca. 23%. The USA is second at cca. 14%.
1.11.1.1. Con: Although China has surpassed the USA in terms of annual global emissions, the USA is still by far the [biggest cumulative contributor](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2)(The United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date: at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of historical emissions. This is twice more than China – the world’s second largest national contributor.).
1.11.2. Pro: The U.S. military bases, both domestic and foreign, rank among [some of the most polluted places in the world](https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html), therefore the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement is a selfish act.